Taxpayer support

[999tigger]

This threads depressing because the issue keeps changing from one thing to another.

 

What is it you are complaining about Ron? People are using phrases like gaming the system and training, which isnt entirely helpful.

 

You picked a poor example for your op because that example is not representative. A very small amount of cases are going to concern people with 12 kids. The vast majority of cases concern families with 2 children or fewer. The only reason her case draws attention is her attitude on a tv series and the fact shes an idiot having kids because it gets her notoriety. Its a big headline figure, but she still has to feed 12 kids. She is not representative. Thats when cyclone pointed out people like her werent a major problem. They cnat eb a major problem if they are only a small number of claims.

 

The entitlement for tax credits will not apply to children beyond the second starting in 2017.

 

You have a system of rules. You either fall within them or you dont. Falling within them legally is something people are entitled to do, theres nothing with it at all. The only people you have a concern about is people who claim they are in the rules, when in fact they are not i.e people commiting fraud.

 

If you want to spend less then cut the tax credit rates. Tax credits also indirectly subsidise employers by making it possible for workers to accept a lower salary.

 

Its a gamble because that money will either need to be made up by employers or they are going to have to accept a fall in living standards. It all depends whether you think the rates are generous and people are living it up or you feel tax credits are vital and keeping people in work.

 

 

Good one Mr Bloke for the article I was about to post about her. If we are going to post about benefits and make claims then its importnat to understand how the system works. Where I think that article will be called into question is that the govt has introduced the minimum income floor, which assumes she makes money. As far as I understood it she will have a nominal income of 13k attributed to her whether she earns it or not becayse she's self employed. The £3850 only apples to paye.

Edited October 17, 2015 by 999tigger

[I1L2T3]

This threads depressing because the issue keeps changing from one thing to another.

 

What is it you are complaining about Ron? People are using phrases like gaming the system and training, which isnt entirely helpful.

 

You picked a poor example for your op because that example is not representative. A very small amount of cases are going to concern people with 12 kids. The vast majority of cases concern families with 2 children or fewer. The only reason her case draws attention is her attitude on a tv series and the fact shes an idiot having kids because it gets her notoriety. Its a big headline figure, but she still has to feed 12 kids. She is not representative. Thats when cyclone pointed out people like her werent a major problem. They cnat eb a major problem if they are only a small number of claims.

 

The entitlement for tax credits will not apply to children beyond the second starting in 2017.

 

You have a system of rules. You either fall within them or you dont. Falling within them legally is something people are entitled to do, theres nothing with it at all. The only people you have a concern about is people who claim they are in the rules, when in fact they are not i.e people commiting fraud.

 

If you want to spend less then cut the tax credit rates. Tax credits also indirectly subsidise employers by making it possible for workers to accept a lower salary.

 

Its a gamble because that money will either need to be made up by employers or they are going to have to accept a fall in living standards. It all depends whether you think the rates are generous and people are living it up or you feel tax credits are vital and keeping people in work.

 

 

Good one Mr Bloke for the article I was about to post about her. If we are going to post about benefits and make claims then its importnat to understand how the system works. Where I think that article will be called into question is that the govt has introduced the minimum income floor, which assumes she makes money. As far as I understood it she will have a nominal income of 13k attributed to her whether she earns it or not becayse she's self employed. The £3850 only apples to paye.

 

In bold, no this is not the only concern. Yes it may be that most people are behaving within the rules but to put it very bluntly the rules are completely and utterly wrong.

 

The rules as they are encourage patterns of behaviour that are leading to people becoming welfare dependent when they shouldn't be. This is what Ron is driving at.

 

The rules also lead to poor behaviour from companies.

 

Such a mess.

[999tigger]

In bold, no this is not the only concern. Yes it may be that most people are behaving within the rules but to put it very bluntly the rules are completely and utterly wrong.

 

The rules as they are encourage patterns of behaviour that are leading to people becoming welfare dependent when they shouldn't be. This is what Ron is driving at.

 

The rules also lead to poor behaviour from companies.

 

Such a mess.

 

So what would you do?

It seems you are criticising people for claiming soemthing they are entitled to (intil the rules change).

Give me examples of your completely and utterly wrong.

Are you going to scrap them entirely?

[I1L2T3]

So what would you do?

It seems you are criticising people for claiming soemthing they are entitled to (intil the rules change).

Give me examples of your completely and utterly wrong.

Are you going to scrap them entirely?

 

I'd keep them for people in genuine need. Some people do need some support to get into work and for example, genuine entrepreneurs with solid business plans who may need a period of support to get their businesses running, or single parents keen to get back in the workforce.

 

As for the rest tax credits need to be tapered eventually to nothing. Obviously it would take some time to unwind this mess but increased wages (aka the living wage), creating genuine jobs with genuine security, tackling the abuse of flexible hours contracts by employers, and tackling housing costs would be good starts. The Tories are actually doing some of this which is very welcome but they are making precisely the same mistake as they did with the bedroom tax. They have something which is conceptually sound but they want to do it in 2 years when it should take ten.

[999tigger]

I'd keep them for people in genuine need. Some people do need some support to get into work and for example, genuine entrepreneurs with solid business plans who may need a period of support to get their businesses running, or single parents keen to get back in the workforce.

 

As for the rest tax credits need to be tapered eventually to nothing. Obviously it would take some time to unwind this mess but increased wages (aka the living wage), creating genuine jobs with genuine security, tackling the abuse of flexible hours contracts by employers, and tackling housing costs would be good starts. The Tories are actually doing some of this which is very welcome but they are making precisely the same mistake as they did with the bedroom tax. They have something which is conceptually sound but they want to do it in 2 years when it should take ten.

 

So how would you judge whether they are in genuine need? They are already means tested. Arent they already tapered?

 

What would your genuine needs test look like?

 

You talk about geuine entrepeneurs, so how does that work?

 

Why help single parents and not couples? You do realise the very big increase in self employed is because people were encouraged to try it and many did as an alternative to signing on.

 

How are you going to tackle housing costs?

 

I thought the point about a free labour market and less regulation meant there was less job security?

 

Could the country afford taking ten years to do this?

[I1L2T3]

So how would you judge whether they are in genuine need? They are already means tested. Arent they already tapered?

 

What would your genuine needs test look like?

 

You talk about geuine entrepeneurs, so how does that work?

 

Why help single parents and not couples? You do realise the very big increase in self employed is because people were encouraged to try it and many did as an alternative to signing on.

 

How are you going to tackle housing costs?

 

I thought the point about a free labour market and less regulation meant there was less job security?

 

Could the country afford taking ten years to do this?

 

Look, there will always be certain categories of people who need help to get into the workforce or to get on their feet with a genuine business. So I wouldn't necessarily call it a test as such. You either are in a category where support is available or not.

 

As for the rest the elephant in the room is the cost of living. We've had falling real wages for quite some time set against rising living costs. Those are the reasons why tax credits are needed and the reason why we have a massive housing benefits bill.

 

I know why people were encouraged to go self-employed. Shameful.

 

Tackling it all:

 

Genuine entrepreneurs would pass the tests HMRC has devised to weed out the fake businesses

 

The housing crisis is tackled by building more affordable housing

 

Employee rights are protected by halting any further erosion of rights, abuses of flexible hours contracts are stamped out

 

The living wage is upped. Tories are already doing this

 

etc... etc... etc...

 

Certainly not a project for just one parliament. Ideally the parties would try and build some consensus to deal with all this.

[Mister M]

I disagree with the part I've bolded. The zhc teen at sports direct won't get more hours or more money without either getting more hours or more pay, or getting a different job. This lady however has the chance of changing her business to actually return a profit - change suppliers, charge more (or less), learn how to sell better etc.

 

The rest of it I agree with. It really has to be the short term, from what I understand of her predicament she sees tax credits as a never ending source of income, which IMO it should never be so.

 

 

 

That's one possibility; another is that she doesn't make any money on the books. It would be a bit silly to put yourself in the public spotlight though if the profits come from cash in hand work that don't go near the accounts. Let's face it, we all know self employed people that fiddle the system to maximise the return from the state.

 

 

 

From the Facebook article:

 

'On Question Time a mother explained the effects of the tax credits cuts on her family. On Wednesday at PMQs I told David Cameron about Kelly, a single mum of a disabled child who also cannot see how she will be able to provide for her family after these cuts.

 

People voted for the Conservative government in May because they believed Cameron when he said he would balance the books fairly; instead he is dealing with the deficit on the backs of low and middle income earners, and the poorest. David Cameron categorically denied there would be tax credit cuts because he knew this would be unpopular with the very people he needed to vote for him.

 

People who voted Conservative in May were misled. This Tory government is not the Party of the British worker, but is the problem for the British worker.'

 

That's the whole post.

 

 

 

Opposition without presenting an alternative is pointless; it provides nothing for someone to get behind, nothing for someone in a similar situation to feel they should vote for. In this case all they've done is potentially alienate any Tory voters who are facing cuts in tax credits, by blaming them for voting for it.

 

Labour: 'You are an idiot for voting Conservative'

Voter: 'What would you have done instead?'

Labour: 'Nevermind that, you were an idiot.'

 

 

 

To the point where they are both businesses that don't produce a product that enough people buy in order to return profits, yes. I don't want the taxpayer to subsidise either business.

 

So Jeremy Corbyn didn't have a 'dig' at the woman on Question Time, as you claimed.

[gomgeg]

Just read about the woman on Question Time complaining about cuts in tax credits. Says she's been one of the poorest of the poor, only gets £400 a week in tax credits and maintenance from ex, child benefit and works part time self employed running a Nail bar. A bit selective that, only selling nails, why not sell screws as well? It might be an idea not to have so many kids if she can't afford them and get a bit of advice about budgeting.

[cassity]

If it wasn't a problem, why would the Tories waste money on trying to clamp down on it?

 

If the Tories are so concerned with the large numbers 'problem', their concern will stem from figures, not "my mate int pub told me" Those figures will be available of course..I stand to be corrected but cyclone asked you to supply those figures. 'Spin' doesn't need figures, it relies on stupidity and unquestionable gullibility.

[RonJeremy]

If the Tories are so concerned with the large numbers 'problem', their concern will stem from figures, not "my mate int pub told me" Those figures will be available of course..I stand to be corrected but cyclone asked you to supply those figures. 'Spin' doesn't need figures, it relies on stupidity and unquestionable gullibility.

 

I of course do not have the figures. How could I? - I have said this all along I talk from my own experience. Perhaps I am the bloke in the pub. I do like going to pubs. I listen to spin from both sides, observe the evidence with my own eyes and ears and come to my own conclusions. I am of course happy to share them on SF.

Just cause I cant prove them, doesn't make them untrue.